43445Re: McPherson's Flanking Movement at Port Gibson
- Apr 15 10:55 AM--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Carl Williams" <carlw4514@...>
>The "conceivable motive" is very simple, you find something that you do
> geez, how the heck did I do that?
> anyway, care to comment? My question was, what conceivable motive
> would there be to discredit McPherson? Is this a case of Bearss'
> interpretation becoming gospel, and many other historians following in
> unquestioning lock-step?
not like in their work. What is is matters little, the important thing
is you want/need them to be wrong about this. Since Bearss & McPherson
have excellent credentials copule with an impressive body of work the
only option is to attack them. To make you idea sound better, you need
to do this at every opportunity and as often as possible. This works
best on the idea that if you throw enough, mud some of it might stick.
While I agree that no one is right 100% of the time, this type of
insessant personal attack is silly. In addition, none of these so-
called "errors" are more than small details that have little or no
impact on history. However, to the attacker, this so-call "error"
invalidate some very impressive work becuse they just know they
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>